The Female Snarl And The Male Smirk

The female snarl has become a topic of conversation, which is not surprising because American women in general are becoming less feminine and more churlish. When in the past women would gently demur the solicitations of beta and omega males, today they prefer the unrefined art of snarling like a hyena over a fresh kill, the kill being their overworked vaginas. Meanwhile, alpha males witness them snarling ungenerously and think, “Marriage material? Nope. Pump and dump material? Yes!”

don’t bother me. i’m pooping a purple saguaro.

The author of the linked article posits that the frequency with which women snarl correlates to their age and the sexual market threat level of the targets of their disapproval.

A woman arguably snarls between five to twenty times a day. The frequency is directly related to maturity. The more immature, the more the snarl appears. High school, consistently snarling. College, frequently. Twenties, sporadically. Thirties, only when they see a younger woman. There have probably been a couple snarls while reading this.

Ha haa. I’d add that the snarl is increasing among all female age groups, though younger women do use it more profligately, and with good reason: there are more beta males lasciviously eyeing their goods for penile plunder. What’s a hot babe to do? She has to fend them off by the hundreds, and a fat cockblock won’t be there for her every time. So the snarl is unfurled like a banner of bitchiness.

Why do women overuse the snarl to such potent effect? Simple: they don’t get called out on it by their designated targets. Most beta males wilt like flowers in the high noon summer heat when they get blasted with the snarl shockwave. “Oh, sweet fancy moses, excuse me for so presumptuously intruding upon your oxygen supply. I shall slink away now and hope my penis has reemerged from under my pubic bone when I return hope to fap the night away.”

The thing is, the female snarl is exceedingly easy to call out without resorting to butthurt confrontation.

“Nice face.”

“Are you pooping?”

“Sniffing for grubs?”

“You look like my hamster! Wait, don’t stop doing that. It’s great!”

“Finally got a whiff of my sex panther cologne, eh?”

Or, you could answer the female snarl with the male equivalent:

i’m sorry, are you supposed to mean something to me?

Ah, the alpha male smirk. As penetrative of women’s self-entitled bitch shields as their snarl is of beta males’ self-confidence. The perfectly timed smirk is the best comeback plus more. It instantly patronizes, condescends and belittles, without so much as revealing an iota of spite or care that might be used by a woman to anchor another bitchy barrage.

A fantastically egregious bitch — let’s say, a chubster wearing too much makeup and muffin top who thinks every man wants her and deserves her worst shit tests — requires a bit more… encouragement… to reform her ill-suited attitude. In such circumstances, the smirk won’t pack the necessary wallop. You’ll need something edgier.

Yea, I don’t know how that first snarl picture was taken, but their expressions suggest that whoever took it had just jizzed in one of the girls’ brightly-colored sugary drinks. In other words… way over-the-top disgusted.

Maybe not, these girls are Clearly around the age range of 12-15 tops. If you were a kid and someone who fits the description of a predator found you sexually desirable. Wouldn’t you want them to go away. It’s a defense mechanism. I would much rather my daughter do that instead of making a predator feel wanted in the surroundings. DONT BE CREEPS GUYS…

Oh, no, Heartiste isn’t claiming jurisdiction over that, taterearl… He’s calling out piss-poor conduct on their part. And the response he proposes in most cases is more withering and devastating to most of them than anything else you could do- and he spells out why.

A timeless romance. Yet only possible in the nineteen-hundred-seventies. Scored by John Barry, who himself also scored the choice tail of the 1960’s, Jane Birkin, before that incestuous perv Serge Gainsbourg defiled and bred her.

That’s why someone clued in will only view them as pump-n-dump candiates. Arrested Development is another word for Borderline or Narcissitic Personality disorder in most cases- and those are really, really bad mojo. I tend to refer to them as The Insane- for they are, really.

Interesting you should mention hyenas. Their societies are matriarchies, the alpha dog is literally a bitch with an extended penis like clit. I guess the atheists are right, we’re witnessing evolution as american females morph before our eyes to the changing environment.

An attractive women, especially if she also by e.g. her clothing signals availability, is shooting for men who have higher SMV than they do. This is likely to be successful for a short-time association, but unsuccessful for long term commitment – this has been discussed at length on this blog.

In any case, this display (deliberate or not) will attract lots of men who have too low an SMV. (Women often overestimate their own which puts the bar higher than it would have to be.)

So, in any case, a pretty young women WILL attract lots of unwanted attention. So she needs to dispose of these attempts expeditiously if there are many of them – and there often are.

However, a snarl is overkill – possibly to impress her female friends – .
A simple, “sorry, I am not interested” or similar would do the job
nicely, without hurting the fellow’s feelings more than necessary.

A snarl used to be reserved for the guys that just bloody wouldn’t take a hint or were an omega trying to reach for a 6+ SMV woman…

Nowadays they fling that damn crap about like it was the way to go.

Heartiste basically spelled it out for what it was and how to actually deal with the bullshit (for that’s what it is these days…). It doesn’t impress. It is a deep turn off for someone to see you do it from a distance without real cause- which they do all the time.

As someone observed, it’s a sign of “Arrested Development”- which is a simpler more lay term for a Personality Disordered individual. Bad things come from relationships more than an ONS with a PD’ed individual. Seriously.

The snarl really is one of the most unattractive things a woman can do under any circumstance. Merely observing a woman making that face at someone or something completely eliminates her from my interests.

The gaying of america continues, media pushing gayboy appeals to women. I think there is a dead zone from thin (lead singer of Incubus) to thin with muscles (marky mark) to real big (Roger/mini roger from Jersey Shore or VK). Might just be a city thing because medium big gets obscured by clothes (need to be at the beach).

In Chirs Nolan’s defense, she is a better-than-usual Hollywood actress, and not so distractingly beautiful that you’d miss the forest for her trees. So picking her for Catwoman makes ok, sense-wise: she can deliver the artistry of her role well without distracting you with her looks.

In contrast, bombshells generally disappear past 30 in Hollywood.

Usually, for females in Hollywood, better to be cute-but-attainable-for-average-joes than bombshell. The former allows for a longer career and more sympathy for female movie-goers/left-wing critics. the latter engenders massive hatred.

That article is total bullshit. They have fat people, average weight and skinny people. They don’t define what “macho” is, it looks like they correlate “macho” with being fat. Then they say fat people are unatractive (groudbreaking discovery).

This means chicks like skinny, as in “non fat men”. If a land of whales a non overweight person is considered thin, although that person just has a healthy weight.

I can’t remember the last time I was snarled at because I haven’t been in a feminist bastion like DC for more than a decade but, I’d say that the “non-butthurt” response suggestions would either not be effective or would come out as more butthurt than confronting them along the lines of what their problem is.

Maybe the DC girls feel they can do it precisely because they know that even local “alphas” won’t directly call them on it.

That snarl is primarily reserved for rival females. It translates as, “Who do you think you are, bitch?” It can be triggered by something so minor as having a nicer handbag than the snarler.

I love that snarl. Every time I get one, it makes my whole fucking day.

I’m just kind of surprised that it ever gets used on males. And shocked that a man on the receiving end would be interested in continuing to engage with a girl who looked at him like that. Why would you want to pick up a girl who was giving you a look like a cat’s ass?

Exactly. And instead of a snarl, I respond with a wide-eyed, bemused look coupled with the smirk. Another reason I have no nasolabial folds.

These girls are also not far-sighted enough, which is a result of the instant gratification mindset, to realize the guy at whom she’s making that ugly face is not the only person seeing her. The alpha, quietly scanning the room, sees it along with her target.

And, it raises your SMV up at least a fraction of a notch. It clearly impresses when you do that. You’re reaching for a pony bomb whereas those young ladies in the pic reached for a 40+ megaton H-bomb.

Never use more disdain, etc. than you actually really need to convey the concept- regardless of whether you’re male or female. Using too much means you’re either clueless, nuts, or the like. Definitely a downgrade on SMV overall. I won’t do crazy for more than an ONS- and I’ll only really do it if I’m really randy. There’s more than enough more that’re not fucked in the head and after wasting 15 years of my life with some of The Insane, I won’t willingly choose it long-term and it’s not my first choice short term.

I have gotten many snarls before, funny enough its only in my home country. The thing that pisses me off the most is getting a little retarded snarl when doing warm up approaches.
You start talking to some average chick you don’t want to fuck anyways, and she then she acts all smart and snarly. It disgusts me that a 18-22 year old seven that never did anything noteworthy in her life thinks she is above me.

Most niggers ARE beta. They do a lot of jive-talking, chest-thumping, and braggadico, but it’s all just veneer to cover up their inner pussy. It’s why they were dominated by Southern whites for so long—a white man with confidence and the willingness to fight them absolutely wrecked them. It wasn’t till they got into the ghettos of the North that the “black-man-as-alpha” idea took hold, as insecure beta bitch lefty boys were too entranced by the shuckin’ and jivin’ to see it was all a show.

I knew a mudshark back in college, back in my beta days. She actually got really upset telling me about them, because such “gangstas” were pure pussies in the bedroom and betas behind closed doors.

Not everything requires research. That’s the problem of the left. They often think they need to waste money and time conducting research on issues that are obvious and could easily be observed. While I think we should conduct research on most things, just bear in mind that in the end most studies DO CONFIRM the obvious. So don’t overlook the obvious just because it hasn’t been confirmed yet by one of your superfluous studies.

Whorefinder just stating the obvious and the observed in the Black community, but people like you would like us to keep our eyes wide shut for the sake of political correctness. No go.

“yet in this case being of “right” sensibilities seems to preclude the provision of evidence”

Indeed!
_________________
“because such “gangstas” were pure pussies in the bedroom and betas behind closed doors.”

They were raised by single mothers, so what do we expect? And those women aren’t the most feminine types and do have ball-busting capabilities with the way they hit and scream at their children. Did you ever see a black single mother taking her kids to the mall or a fast food restaurant? It’s the most classless exchange. So what example do you think these black boys had of being Alphas? None.

Nitelily, I am beggining to notice your flaming Hipocrisy. Yesterday you were all over ithe Pope thread attempting (albeit a failed attempt) to call out Greg (Elliot) for his “blind racist attacks”, yet here you are now responding to Whorefinder. I don’t care either way what your personal opinions are, everyone is entitled to belief what they want and voice said belief but its hilarious actually reading your responses to whorefinder and then your responses to Greg Elliot. As aforementioned my agreement or disagreement with what is stated is not the point but you smell like a hipocrite trying to hide whatever personal virtual vendetta you have against Greg under the auspices of denoucing his views as if they are without merit. As least Greg stays consistent. Smh

I find your manful defense of my name quite touching, woman… and I thank you, as yet another voice of normalcy, for noticing the extreme dichotomy of response which, at first, seems illogical and/or hypocritical… but which makes perfect sense when you revisit some of my replies from the previous thread about why I seem to put the useful idiot knickers in the tightest twists, though my language is far tamer than some of my WN peers.

You don’t understand what’s going on here, and frankly I don’t want to get into this argument again, but since you brought it up I have to respond.

I am not anti-criticism, especially constructive criticism that serves to help, not spread hate. It’s OK to criticize – criticizing Jews for usually being liberal, Blacks for not speaking proper English, or Hispanics for coming here illegally and using up the system. Also, pointing out some obvious trends within a community is not bad either, it’s reality. i.e – Jews tend to vote democrat and Blacks tend to have more children out of wedlock or collect food stamps, etc… The problem is the Left made it racist to criticize any minority but Whites. Whites and Christians are a fair game, but not blacks, Muslims, Hispanics, or whatever. That’s why you can’t see the difference. It’s OK, I couldn’t either at first.

Criticism is a whole different thing than spewing hate. Maybe you haven’t read all the exchanges I had with Greg, but most of it was hate, hate, hate against Jews. It started with him writing comments that glorified Hitler and that’s what irked me about him in the very beginning. Maybe you don’t agree, but in my book Hitler shouldn’t be glorified and Nazi Germany shouldn’t be upheld as a good example of a White government. I can provide you the links if you want to read some of that Nazi adulation of his.

Next, on another occasion, I expressed some of my feelings about Islam and terror. Again, not spreading hate, just pointing the obvious and the observable about Islam and its ambitions vis-à-vis the West. In fact, Wolfie and I were exchanging a few words about it. Well… that got Anon upset with me and calling me war mongering – ‘cause I think terrorists should not be allowed to strike America again, get it? That prompted his friend Greg to jump on me too with stuff like we can’t trust you, you’re a neocon, and spewing all kinds of other garbage of the hate verity, especially towards Jews again. I responded of course, and that got us in another long war.

Next, I got irked with him because he constantly uses nigger, yiddler, schlomo, shabbos goy and other derogatory epithets as a winning argument against people he thinks are Blacks, Jews, or Jewish sympathizers. There are threads where all you see is cat-and-mouse game between him and thwack. A few times I chimed in to show his hypocrisy. He accuses thwack of being Jealous of white folks and their successes. So I pointed out to him that he is doing the same thing when he trashes the Jews for supposedly controlling the world with their influence and their money, and I showed him why it’s not true, way over exaggerated, there is no conspiracy of the Jews to try to dominate the world, and he is speaking out mostly out of Jealousy about their success. So that started us on another argument.

There are a few more arguments, but they are mostly around this hysteria of his about the ”Jewish conspiracy” to control the world, and his constant attempt to substitute Jews for liberals and leftists, much like the left tries to substitute racists for conservatives. I am not hiding the fact that I am a hard conservative, but I am not a white-supremacist. I don’t think white-Supremacist are that conservative either. Most of them are pagan and anti-Judeo-Christian values. Their whole issue is they hate everyone who is not white. That’s not conservative values, and I don’t think you get rid of the Left by using white-supremacist dogma, or by substituting Jews for liberals and preaching another holocaust. You should read some of the comments by “uh”, he is another Nazi white-supremacist who hasn’t posted in a while. All he talks about is his hate for the Jews and how evil they are. It’s unbelievable the level of hate he spews, which both Greg and Anon are real fans of. I once rebuked Greg for his incitement of “uh.” “Uh” was so wounded-up and unhinged that I thought he was going to go out and do something stupid, which he and all of us will regret, that’s how much hate he was exchanging with Greg. It was beyond disgusting, especially his list of whom he’ll shoot first when Greg’s famous fray begins. Truthfully, I can’t believe there are people here who think this kind of rhetoric is acceptable, and that includes Matt, whom I am very disappointed in because he can’t recognize the danger.

I have a lot more examples, but I think you get the point. Oh, and let’s not forget that when I put him on the spot regarding his hate, he starts to quote me Biblical verses as a justification. That’s when I told him he is descanting the Bible. The Bible is not an instrument of hate; it’s an instrument of morality.

So again, just to sum it up. Criticism is not bad, and necessary if you’re trying to show someone the error of their ways (i.e Bill Cosby telling Black men how they are hurting their families by not sticking around to raise the kids they father, for which he was called an uncle Tom, btw). However, spewing pure hate that can get people to take action like a madman did in Germany 70 years ago is very dangerous and a whole different ballgame. There is no comparison. I hope I answered your question.

Tarantino strikes again… man, oh, man… what sort of nuclear bomb of a traumatic experience must he have had with either daddy or mommy as a child to betray his gender and his alleged “own kind” so, in film after film… one shudders.

Judging by our youth of today, their greatest fear is that they won’t.

Tarantino taps into this fear, probably because he is alpha.

I’m still trying to figure out if he’s merely the usual headcase writer/director that the Hollywood moguls love to tout because of his culture-wrecking glee… or if he’s some devious genius white nationalist looking to kick-start us in the ass by making the natives restless.

I’m guessing the former, but hey… if a carpenter can get resurrected, anything’s possible.

He takes white people to the abyss.

Naw, he just collects his thirty shekels and takes them to the bank… all the while not realizing that, for all his studies in evil, Evil is studying him right back.

“I Am Legend” (2007)
The world is plagued by some sort of disease turning people into “zombies”. A scientist is trying to discover the cure. After a while, he realizes practically everyone is a zombie. They have created a sort of civilization of their own. And consider HIM a deviation and a monster from scary legends (a Dracula-like).

“Spike Lee questioned Tarantino’s use of racial epithets in his films, particularly the racially offensive epithet “nigger”. In a Variety interview discussing Jackie Brown, Lee said: “I’m not against the word… and I use it, but Quentin is infatuated with the word. What does he want? To be made an honorary black man?””

You realize of course that white people are the dominant ethnic group in this country, not a tiny minority like they were in Rhodesia, don’t you? You do realize that the Rhodesian white govt surrendered power because of pressure from other white people (Europe, USA). You do realize that Rhodesia is a ruined country economically, now, don’t you? Do you realize anything?

The percentage of the American population that is white is steadily declining — whites will likely be a minority in the US within the next 100 years — but on an official level (in academia, say, or in the media, even in government) whites are blamed for every major social problem. Now what does history tell us about the ultimate fate of frequently- scapegoated minorities? You remind me of the old joke about the guy falling off the 20- storey building who halfway down says to himself, “OK so far!”

“whites will likely be a minority in the US within the next 100 years — but on an official level (in academia, say, or in the media, even in government) whites are blamed for every major social problem. Now what does history tell us about the ultimate fate of frequently- scapegoated minorities?”

Very true. The left often substitutes white for racist. Or conservative for racists. So we’re all racists, and that’s why there is injustice in the world, according to the left.

re: Thwack, maintaining our constitutional republic will be a numbers game. Giving that up, and admitting that we were wrong about the whole thing would be… frustrating. Luckily for us the demographics aren’t quite as bad as everyone seems to think.

King A
do you minorities really go in for this kind of condescending tokenism? I would think you’d be more cognizant of the thinly-veiled SWPL’s idealism than their fellow liberals would be, and the strategy would backfire.
——————
I don’t know about other nonwhites, but black people get the joke. Especially the white writer who gave the black character the name “T-Dog”; bless his heart… I know he was trying for an authentically “black name”, but he failed miserably and its a running joke among black people.

But, from time to time Hollywood does offer some some insight into the white phsyche from their choice of black characters. For example, making Uhura the communications officer on Star Trek is a case of white people projecting their sense negro sound processing ability, in addition to our role of serving as messengers for white people. “Kench” on Hogans Heros is another example of this phenomenon. Black people are good at music and are often better than white people who have had years of training. White people think this is because black people have an extra bone in their inner ear; its also how white people account for black peoples dancing ability. We are even better when we are blind.

I turned off the show at that precise moment, in the drugstore, when the only thing worth looking at on the series began throwing herself at this sniveling überbeta Short-Round manboy. (Truth is, the show began to seriously flag with the stupid love triangle, then positively died when it meandered over to the farm.)

Zombies? Okay. Kick-ass womyn throwing down? Whatever. A cooperative token named “T-Dog”? All righty. Total collapse of civilization into abject anarchy? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I can suspend my disbelief. About most things. But Lauren Cohan getting yellow fever with a scrawny nip with a backpack? Click.

Now I hear there is a ninja negress with a sword swooping in on the group to save the day. Why not?

Where are all the game-trained screenwriters? Let’s get cracking. So much dross, even James Bond has been turned into a pussy with mother issues. Will somebody with half a clue write an ebook series at least? It doesn’t even have to be that good.

One could write the next great America novel, but if the necessary shibboleths and bizarro-world PC characters aren’t adhered to, well… good luck getting the necessary production and distribution resources to bring it to show time fruition.

But Lauren Cohan getting yellow fever with a scrawny nip with a backpack? Click.

Now I hear there is a ninja negress with a sword swooping in on the group to save the day. Why not?
—————-

The white zombie flick market is fully captured; the job of these nonwhite characters is to pull in their respective demographics.

Thats where the growth is. Tiger Woods was a twofer- chinks and niggers took up golf; its no longer an old white man sport. Now you can lift weights and cheat on your wife and get caught…live life like a big carnival, get drunk, act like an animal…

The white zombie flick market is fully captured; the job of these nonwhite characters is to pull in their respective demographics.

Good theory, but it’s tangential in this case. The TV series tracks with the comic books, which were written years earlier by a solitary omega neckbeard, who more likely was personally reflecting an internalized zeitgeist than he was thinking demographically.

Really, do you minorities really go in for this kind of condescending tokenism? I would think you’d be more cognizant of the thinly-veiled SWPL’s idealism than their fellow liberals would be, and the strategy would backfire. Did homies start watching Star Trek because of Uhura? Or was she offered up to assuage the liberals who believe that such tokenism atones for their white guilt, and it is therefore okay to watch the show?

Woods and Yao Ming weren’t tokens. They were objectively worthy athletes given no special placement.

doubleplusgood. Will use on my liberal feminist lesbian sister, who’s only mode of communication (with me) is sarcasm and snarling. It will be extra funny ’cause her SO is even more mannish than she is.

After 4 months in Poland I can’t recall a single time I saw a girl snarl. I suppose if a drunk guy was being very aggressive at a bar it would happen. In California it’s used by many women multiple times a day, not only directed at Betas but used in conversation with other women to describe interactions with Betas, men, female competition, parents, bosses, “friends”, etc.

I’ve already given up on American women among many reasons for their aptly described churlishness. For anyone holding out hope for an American girl, I recommend observing the frequency of their snarl as an indicator of marriage worthiness. If you notice it more than a couple times, dump her quickly. Men really need to start calling girls on this snarky behavior using such lines as recommended above.

crazy ass election theory here. Romney and McCain were smirkless. Bush smirked. Bush won. Obama’s gay but at least he’s a god head to the gays and free shit crowd but he don’t smirk. I think Clinton had a smirk…or some other dark triad facial expression. Dole didn’t.

A good trick to put woman in their place in terms of looks is to imagine their male counter part. When I see what first seems like a cute girl, I imagine what she would look like if she was born a guy, and more times than not it’s some beta schulb. If those two were born male, based on looks they would be invisible.

The minute you call her the C-word, you’re probably burning the bridge.

Fair enough, if that’s your intent.

With the parent’s curse gambit, she’s probably heard that several times as a child and will remember it fondly… and with the surprise variation, there’s still a chance she’ll giggle, if your smirk is inviting enough. And then game on!

Or (more likely) she will think that there is something on her forehead about an inch above her eyes. This will also cause her to leave, at least temporarily as she runs scurrying to the bathroom to check her makeup.

You could also focus on her teeth, or cheek, or make an exaggerate motion on your face that would seem to indicate there is something on her face….

It’s disheartening being in a college town surrounded by thousands of hot chicks with “I smell shit” expressions.
But a countering smirk does seem to make them aware that they’re projecting something negative.

That is one of the best demonstrations of this -horrific- mangling of a sweet female voice I’ve seen, some other vids on this don’t show it quite as well. Listen to how lilting, pleasant, and feminine her voice is after she is done apeing these busted ass Americunts who have to even destroy their natural femininity vocally. Great example of this travesty/tragedy.

Don’t forget its twin sister, “u-p-t-a-l-k”? Which is much more g-r-a-t-i-n-g? Like, I think you’ve h-e-a-r-d i-t?

The use of uptalk and the mass deployment of the word “like” is a function of a widespread loss of confidence: a pussy can’t simply make a declarative statement or command, he has to hedge his bets with a sign of doubt, even with regard to the most obvious truths. He can’t say, “Stop being a prick.” He has to soften the directive with, “Like, you know, you’re kind of like, being a prick, justmyopinion” — as though he is preempting challenge and distancing himself from conflict through simile.

Same with uptalk: “high rising terminal” is what we use to indicate a question, a slight raising of our tone toward the end of the sentence. It puts a question mark after everything we say. It is the vocal equivalent of questioning your own statements, for lack of declarative courage.

Same reason why “Ummm … wow” is so fruity and feckless as a response: rather than being a man and confronting disagreement, the equivocator sits back passively using a vocal filler hoping to rally numbers to himself to do the courageous work of dissent in his stead.

On a related note, I’m noticing an epidemic of young adult men with fey delicate voices and slight lisps, like the whole world has been faggotized. Canadians especially — just listen to the overrepresentation of Canucks on PUA videos (are they all from north of the border these days?). Do these people know any men? Were they all brought up by single mothers and gay uncles? College campuses sound like every boy is angling for a job at NPR after graduation.

And fucking Nate Silver. He’s rocking the entire ladyboy package: look, sound, presence. He should be doing a big, asshole touchdown dance right now, dispensing manly braggadocio with a smirk. Live your victory, son! Before the election, he even managed to tweet some trash talk — for which he was criticized by his dickless bosses. Now, at the peak of his value, he has reverted to his default status: a soft, reedy, ectomorphic form. We are a generation bereft of masculinity.

How are we losing to the eunuch/estrogen brigade? Sheer numbers? I refuse to contemplate that horror.

If Jews were the only ones sitting in the media, you’d be right. But since there are many non-Jews as well, your point sounds like that of a 5-year old throwing a temper tantrum.

Look at MSNBC. Other than Andria Mitchel, who else is Jewish there, and who else is dumping and trashing our conservative values? Lawrence O’Donnell (who is a Hollywood hack, non-Jewish)?, Rachel Maddow (who was raised Catholic and only her paternal grandfather was Jewish)?, Al Sharpton (the Black street-thug and clown)?, Chris Mathews (who is probably the stupidest person on TV and has a thrill up his leg for Obama, non-Jewish)?, Keith Olbermann (who is a nutcase of German descent who used to have a show there, non-Jewish, now he’s working at Al Gore’s network and spewing the same crap)? So who is sitting at MSNBC and peddling leftist ideology with such gusto? Most of them are not Jewish. Same thing at CNN and other media organization – there are Jews involved, but not all are Jewish; there are plenty of Gentiles too. Therefore, your premise is false. And if you still insist that ALL the media is Jewish, you’d sound like a demagogue with the brain of a mouse. Meaning, not a very smart demagogue.

King smartly just puts out the information. He doesn’t add peculiar comments that look like he has an irrational vendetta. He doesn’t say things like: ‘it’s one of the members of the synagogue of Satan’ blah, blah , blah…….. So your heart needn’t be pounding so hard over nothing.

No, it makes a difference whether the mass pussification is a natural SWPL evolution or has another, more direct cause. If Greg Eliot has a case, I’m willing to hear it. I don’t think a combination of Jewish insularity and high-placement is healthy for a Christian society in the end, any more than I think Mexicans should illegally migrate themselves and refuse to assimilate to our philosophy, culture, and language.

No subject is taboo, Lila. Stop trying to stagnate this fecund hothouse of ideas. If his conspiracy theories are off-the-wall stupid, no one will hesitate to say so and we will judge accordingly. That freedom from hesitation and that encouragement of blunt judgment are what makes this forum worth returning to, and it is something you are attempting to control through credulous and frankly hysterical appeals to a liberal conscience.

The essence of philosophy is agnosticism. The way to wisdom is admitting “All I know is I know nothing.” Naïveté is a virtue for inquiry, even a deliberate, devil’s-advocate kind of naïveté. There is never a reason to dismiss a theory out of hand, even the scary and subversive ones, until a hearing has been had. Until then, I make no claims before a full case is made. In that regard, Greg is one-up on you. Because if you are attempting to make the case that it is distasteful and false to muse openly about, much less privately ponder the effect of semitism on a culture, you have not made a convincing case. Certainly not convincing enough to recommend the chilling effect a police-management of our rhetoric would create.

“I don’t think a combination of Jewish insularity and high-placement is healthy for a Christian society in the end, any more than I think Mexicans should illegally migrate themselves and refuse to assimilate to our philosophy, culture, and language.”

Visit California. Half the “white” people here — speaking English, learning our political philosophy, constituting culture — are of Mexican descent. Many of them are second or third generation. Some have families that have been here even longer.

“If his conspiracy theories are off-the-wall stupid, no one will hesitate to say so and we will judge accordingly.”

“If his conspiracy theories are off-the-wall stupid, no one will hesitate to say so and we will judge accordingly.”

So I am saying so and judging accordingly. I will respond every time I think someone has a totally cracker idea, whether in this supposed issue of the Jews controlling the world, or when people erroneously tell a woman to leave her husband. What do you expect me to do, be quiet because my “female” ideas are dangerous to the boys? If I speak the truth, my sex is irrelevant. Truth knows no sex, religion, race, or political creed. It’s universal, and everywhere it is true. Like 2+2=4. It’s true no matter where you are in the Universe, and no matter who utters it, Gentile, Jew, black, white, man, woman. If you believe in a creator, you understand the concept of absolute truth, don’t you?

In this case, i just proved there are many Gentiles in the liberal media influencing America, not just Jews. As you know, MSNBC had a strong influence on liberals voting for Obama Mamma. I just proved my case and debunked his. Chew on that for a while.

“If his conspiracy theories are off-the-wall stupid, no one will hesitate to say so and we will judge accordingly.”

REALLY, is that what the German people did in Nazi Germany? They judged accordingly? Honestly? Chew on that for a while too. This is DANGER ZONE territory and I am saying so. You can choose not to listen and shut your ears, as many have done throughout hisotry.

“and it is something you are attempting to control through credulous and frankly hysterical appeals to a liberal conscience.”

WRONG!!!!! Just like he voices his demented irrational fallacies, which I just proved are fallacious, so I debunk. What are you fearing? That I am doing the job of men?

“There is never a reason to dismiss a theory out of hand, even the scary and subversive ones, until a hearing has been had. Until then, I make no claims before a full case is made.”

So that’s what we are doing. He says his stuff, and some of us show how erroneous it is. You don’t like that we’re doing it? Let’s see YOU debunk or validate anything he says?

“In that regard, Greg is one-up on you.”

In other words, you agree with his demented ideas. I can read between the lines, you know.

“Because if you are attempting to make the case that it is distasteful and false to muse openly about,”

WRONG, again. I am not policing speech, I am debunking speech, which is in my right to do.

BTW, I love how my name keeps evolving. I love Lila. Has an air of the temptress to it. I don’t mind Delilah either. I am sure that’s coming next. Ta Ta….

Greg hasn’t presented a case, he just asserted his unpopular position a few times. That’s how he is one-up on you: you’ve been trying to prosecute an anti-semitism charge that I don’t find persuasive, whereas he is (wittily) reiterating the conclusions of a thesis never fully presented for examination.

I’ve never heard his theory in full, so I refuse to preemptively dismiss it. (At the same time I am not yearning for a presentation, as I can guess at most of it.) Neither have you heard it, but you are so sure it must be beyond the bounds of liberal propriety that any hint of it must not be tolerated.

I’m not so easily scandalized, is my point. I’ve been dealing with assertions-absent-support — including your own — for so long that it’s clear that we have to allow a different standard to guide our rhetoric if we hope to get anywhere.

Otherwise, you and I can begin at the beginning — Socratic dialectic — and tackle the arduous task of defining words themselves so that we are sure we are in perfect agreement at every stage before proceeding. So allow me to start:

What is “the good”?

No? Don’t want to do that necessary spade work? Then display some good faith in a fellow conservative, and take a few rhetorical short-cuts for purposes of expediency, such as assuming your interlocutor is not intrinsically evil and impossibly misguided. He has done that for you and even for people diametrically opposed to his position, such as the black radical Thwack. Otherwise, you necessarily must talk past each other forever.

Again, that’s where the woman thing comes in. Ladies like to talk just to express themselves, not necessarily to move the dialectic toward synthesis. It’s easy for a woman to keep going and going and going when men have already espied the pointlessness of a particular engagement.

It explains how we create and enforce these traits rather than merely “evolve” into them. Therefore it is a habit feminized betas/omegas can hope to train themselves out of, rather than resign themselves to be saddled with a disadvantage. If you can unlearn yourself out of a slouch, you can teach your voice not to sound like a eunuch’s.

We are the generation without fathers. Men today never knew any men, not in their personal life, not in the popular culture. Queerness abounds, so comprehensively that nobody even thinks to call it out.

I don’t watch PUA videos so I have no idea why so many Canadians are in it and effeminate

but I think this feminisation of men is caused by multiple factors, mostly the incessant brainwashing from the left controlled media and entertainment business,
but it is entirely possible and plausible that either female hormones that end up in drinking water and/or anti-depressant that also end up in the drinking water have made males softer, thus easier to brainwash

or maybe it is some other chemicals such as pesticides,
but too many changes have been observed even among fish in cold water lakes and rivers and with men’s low sperm count for this theory to be dismissed as just a silly idea

Canadian Friend
but I think this feminisation of men is caused by multiple factors, mostly the incessant brainwashing from the left controlled media and entertainment business,
but it is entirely possible and plausible that either female hormones that end up in drinking water and/or anti-depressant that also end up in the drinking water have made males softer, thus easier to brainwash

or maybe it is some other chemicals such as pesticides,
but too many changes have been observed even among fish in cold water lakes and rivers and with men’s low sperm count for this theory to be dismissed as just a silly idea
——————-
Why do you all make excuses for white men?

Why can’t you admit that some white men just ain’t qualified? Plenty of niggas ain’t qualified and you say its cause they niggas; you don’t make no excuses and blame the media, drinking water, pesticides….

Truth is, white males are soft because we all exist in a white supremacy system.

White males don’t have to prove themselves because everybody will make an excuse for them;

…Truth is, white males are soft because we all exist in a white supremacy system.

White males don’t have to prove themselves because everybody will make an excuse for them;

that is the exact opposite of reality

the most powerful nation in the history of the world is lead by a black man who did put/ is putting other black people in high places

It is blacks who never have to prove themselves because in our culture they are perpetual victims and we all make excuses for them

can’t ace the test to become a fireman? sue the white man until he lowers the bar to the level of unqualified black men as they did in NYC

can’t perform well in school? sue the white man until he lowers the bar to your level as many Universities have done

if you are black you will be given money to go to college, if you are white you are on your own, is that white Supremacism?

whites are never allowed similar things, they must succeed by them self because no one has sympathy for them, no one will lower the bar for whitey, and withey does not benefit from affirmative action, is that white Supremacism?

many whites who are due for a promotion have to sit in silence and watch a less qualified black get this promotion in the name of “diversity” and other anti-white male stuff, robbing a white man of his promotion to hand it to a black, is that white Supremacism?

Government employees are for the most part black even though they are only about 14 % of the population, is that white Supremacism?

the requirements to get a mortgage are lower for black people while a white with the same qualifications is refused the mortgage because his skin is the wrong color, a white will pay MORE for a mortgage than a black! is that white Supremacism?

they gave Obama a Nobel prize BEFORE he accomplished anything!!! he did not have to prove himslef, the excuses were all for blackie not withey AND it was WHITE men who gave him this Nobel prize, they must be white supremacists right???

How about when the 911 call was doctored by ABC news to make it look like the hispanic – who was conveniently described as white by all media – who shot in self defense – obviousy if you have seen how bloody his face was – the violent criminal named Trevon Martin had said something racist about black people?

He never said such a thing, but the media which is 98% white people lied trough their teeth – they doctored the 911call which is not only immoral but probably illegal ( they kind of apologized quietly a few days later )- to make a hispanic/white man look very racist and make him go to jail even if he was not guilty and they lied trough their teeth about the violent black man – to appease blacks – and were making excuses for him, posting photos of when he was younger and looked kind of innocent, is that white Supremacism?

All the excuses were for the violent black man, all the incriminating lies were about the hispanic/white and you are telling me we live in a white supremacist world???

Do they doctor the tapes of black people to make them look guilty ?

Obama used black crack dealers turned rapper on his campaign; the 98% white media made excuses for him because they are all black, is that white Supremacism?

Hundreds of blacks tweeted death treats to Romney, again excuses were made or these facts were simply swept under the carpet by the 98% white media, is that white supremacism?

but the tea party was accused of racism simply because most of them are white, and the 98% white media bashed them for it for weeks and weeks, is that white Supremacism?

Excuses are made when blacks are in charge of a city that turns into a wasteland such as in Camden, NJ, Detroit, MI, Birmingham, AL
blacks turned those cities into dumps, they kicked out all the whites, but excuses are made for them, is that white Supremacism?

Excuses are made for Obama who gives crumbs to charity while Romney was demonized even though he was extremely generous with charity, is that white Supremacism?

Excuses were made for Obama having been pall with anti-USA terrorist Bill Ayers, is that white Supremacism?

Excuses were made for Obama having a black mentor who hates the USA and hates whites with a passion; Reverend Wright, is that white Supremacism?

The church of reverend wright is all about hating whites, hating jews and hating the USA, but excuses were made by everyone – politicians, the 98% white media and millions of white people who vote democrat- because he is black and his church is black, is that white Supremacism?

it is blacks who are privileged
and it is whites who are discriminated against

Hate to bring this to race again ( but I hate pretty lies even more ) but just as low IQ Haitians – who French Colonists never managed to civilize – have turned French into a very simplified primitive language they can handle which is called Creole, our young people are adopting the ways of primitive low IQ people

Young people in the USA, Canada and in England are now speaking a sort of mangled, broken and simplified ( and mumbled) bad English

this is but one more symptom of the ongoing decay of Western Civilization

Canadian Friend
Hate to bring this to race again ( but I hate pretty lies even more ) but just as low IQ Haitians – who French Colonists never managed to civilize – have turned French into a very simplified primitive language they can handle which is called Creole, our young people are adopting the ways of primitive low IQ people
—————————————

But see, thats the paradox, all the good Haitians were killed by white slave owners in Haiti.

That meant more and more of the black population was composed of savages.

It was these savages that killed off the evil wicked slave master white people in Haiti.

These savages are heros. Haiti was the 2nd republic in the western hemisphere; right white man?

The bottom-line is that racial diversity leads to a Babylon where the lowest common denominator becomes the norm.

History shows us this, time and again… and the excruciating fact that we need to be reminded of it, over and over, just shows how fallen Man is when he looks to his own wisdom and desires instead of at-one-ment with God.

Diversity has brought decay everywhere it has been imposed on us, be it Amsterdam, Toronto or Los Angeles

but I am still puzzled as to why those who are imposing it can not see this decay and destruction?

It does not matter if they are jews or white liberals or black politicians or hispanic activists, can’t they see the decay? the dying economy?
the higher rates of crimes, of drug use and of so many other bad things?

Can they really be oblivious to it?

I have been reading about this for about a decade now and I am not satisfied with any answer I have heard

Why would a people intentionally, willingly self destruct? ( which is unheard of in human history )

I don’t mean the regular people in the street who are unaware and are more interested in facebooking and buying a new pair of Nikes, they are simply usefull idiots, but I mean those who are imposing this on us?

What is their goal?

The Cloward Piven Strategy might be the best I have found so far but still something does not add up.

Elites are usually interested in building civilizations not destroying them, not their own anyway

why are we at this point?

we know the Roman empire fell and yet our leaders , our ” betters” are doing everything in their power to make our civilization fall while chanting ” faster! faster! ”

As I mentioned in another thread, the whys and wherefores could be examined at excruciating length before a modicum of understanding arises… leastwise, the gathering of enough proof to convince the skeptic.

The Cliffs Notes versions is this: think of Satan… smart fellow, he… one of the greatest angels, if not the greatest… who decided that he knew things better for himself and could challenge his very Creator.

Well, when that didn’t work out so well for him and his fellow travelers, and they were tossed headforemost from their stations, he decides that he’s going to show the old boss who’s more clever, and so he sets about mucking up said boss’s other creations, to prove that a) he’s strong and b) maybe the old boss ain’t so perfect after all.

The rub is, although he’s had some APPARENT successes thus far, when push comes to shove, he KNOWS he’s going to lose… he’s that smart and that foreseeing.

But that thing inside him that made him rebel in the first place is so strong, so overwhelming, that he doesn’t care that he goes down eventually, so long as he has the grim satisfaction of taking as much down with him as he can.

This is the true definition of Evil, and what rampant envy and pride can do to beings of free will.

Now, Satan was so foxy he convinced a full 1/3 of the angels of heaven to join him in rebellion… so imagine what he’s been able to do with earthlings in re his bidding.

Many people, through sloth or any of the other seven deadlies don’t understand that they’re in league with, or at least a useful idiot for, the minions of Satan.

Yet some are… the Bible tells us that certain ones are “of their Father, the Devil”.

So, this is the short version of the “why”, which explains how people, whether inadvertently or purposefully, performs acts that will lead to their very own destruction.

The thing a wise man does is observe what sort of individuals seem to perform this behavior… and categorize them accordingly as chief instigators, stalwart soldiers and true believers, fellow travelers, useful idiots, etc, in order to truly “know they enemy”, as it were.

I repeat, this is a topic which requires more than a few sentences, and is beyond the current scope.

Interesting explanation but being a non religious man I have trouble ” wrapping my head around it” if that is the correct expression.

I used to be an Atheist but am now more of an Agnostic,
the way I see it I can not believe God – if there is a God – is involved in the minute details of our existence

but on the other hand – and this will seem contradictory – a lot of bad things have and still happen to me, some that are completely against all odd and should not happen because I am a good decent man

I don’t lie, I don’t steal , I don’t do drugs, I don’t drink ( socially only ) , I don’t cheat, I have never been unfaithful to a woman, I don’t hurt others ( but believe in self defense 100% ), I have never raped a woman or abused a child et cetera et cetera

everyone who knows me would tell you I am a good honest decent man, I am kind and always willing to help, that they would trust me with their house ATM PIN ( and some have ) et cetera et cetera

yet bad things happen to me constantly as if I was being punished for something

a few examples,

a couple weeks ago – to my surprise – I received by regular mail a letter telling me I have an unpaid parking ticket?!
so I checked where and when this was issued and it was in some town where I have never set foot.

I wrote them back telling them they must have entered the plate number wrong( it is all done by computer now ) so my name and address came out and they left this ticket on the windshield of someone who upon seing that it was addressed at someone else, with a different car and pate number simply threw it away; thus it remained unpaid

I know this is nothing and it can happen to anyone but stuff like this happens to me ALL the time and ever since I was a kid

Last year I went for a sleep study at a Hospital in Montreal, they lost my file not once , not twice but three times !!!

Once as child there was a street fair and they were giving away little 25 cents toys, when I went at the table wehre they were giving them away and I took one in my hand the woman thought I was a kid who had already taken many more – which he was not allowed to – and she slapped me in the face!

a couple years ago I bought leather gloves, once home I pricked my finger putting them on; there was a sewing needle in them!!

I could write a book on all those things that keep happening to me almost daily as there are hundreds and hundreds.

I don’t really believe in God and the Devil but at times it feels as if something or someone hates me and is sending these events my way to annoy or even torture me

but the rational part of me refuses to believe this

(and I don’t believe in ghosts or aliens either)

oh and I know people who are the opposite of me, they lie, they steal, they are unfaithfull and yet they have far better luck than me

weird…

if an entity ( God, Devil, Ghost, Alien etc etc ) is rewarding bad people and punishing good people like me, why is it doing something unfair like that?

if an entity ( God, Devil, Ghost, Alien etc etc ) is rewarding bad people and punishing good people like me, why is it doing something unfair like that?

Again, there’s no proper short answer and the scope is beyond the chateau… but I will say this:

We suffer the imperfect situation of the world, even when we’re good, because the trial of who truly owns it all is still underway.

C. S. Lewis, I believe, said something along the lines of how a Christian today is fighting an underground war for a temporarily absent landlord.

The Devil, and with him Adam and Eve, challenged God… saying “we can figure things out for ourselves, and indeed, with enough time, we’re smart enough to become self-sufficient and don’t really need you. We can rule ourselves, and your rules are not to our taste.”

We see this attitude to this very day in Man, although history has shown we’re no closer to pulling off that ur-boast and winning the challenge.

And so the trial began… and evidence mounts. When the time is right, and no one, be he angel, man, or otherwise, can claim that mankind wasn’t given enough of a chance to prove God wrong… and indeed, when Man, left to his own devices is just about ready to destroy himself totally, the Judgment will come, and Man will again be schooled back to Adamic perfection on a new earth without the influence of Satan.

But until then, we must suffer the consequences of that foolish use of free will, and as in all warfare, innocents suffer.

Our one hope is that, when this war is over, any suffering by “good” people will be amended, and in a BIG way… and the pains of this system of things will be like the memory of a childhood disease, whose pain has long-faded.

Allowing your woman to snarl at anything is a comment on your own bitchitude. Particularly over politics. Try, “Don’t be a cunt” next time she wants to inject her sorority girl emoting into our public deliberations.

Omigod, Grover’s like sooooo odious!!!!!

Let me guess your response: a titter and a giggle followed by a scandalized omigod I know, right?

Of course you were “already shouting” at a television. Your little slice of the Two Minutes Hate.

I know a lot of women who latch on to their man’s bravado, and they catch a little thrill from it. Until they meet the genuine article. Your woman would be screaming “GROVER” by the end of the night — with a very different connotation. Keep your head on a swivel, son.

Because of the philosophy that informs your politics, there is an apology at the bottom of your manhood. I have a permanent policy of bros before hos, so I wouldn’t take advantage. But you should know what your vulnerabilities are, and you must understand that there are men with far fewer scruples than I. I’m looking out for you, politics be damned.

Had a sweet little niece. Aged 8 she started watching those kiddie/teen drama or whatever they are, shows on the Disney channel. Ever since it’s been nothing but sarcasm and snarls. She’s now 10 and I can’t stand being in the same room as the little bitch.

Nah. Most parents these days need help teaching their children respect, as they never learned any themselves. They appreciate your assist.

And if they don’t? Fuck them too. What are they going to do, make a fuss to protect their kid’s right to disrespect their superiors? When their precious pumpkin is plump, pierced, pockmarked, and pregnant at 16, their memories might drift back to the source of where it all began to go wrong. If not, it still doesn’t matter; they are living the hell they created.

Regardless, who puts up with overt cuntliness, much less the nascent version from a confused and rudderless half-pint? They really only need telling once or twice. Then, no matter how the parents let their princess walk all over them, she will stand at attention when you make the scene. Not unlike dogs. Not unlike the properly formed woman, either.

Just as the boatswain’s whistle pipes the ship’s commander aboard: “Captain on deck!” Animals must be trained to respond to cues.

That’s why I love this site … here I am sitting a minute in between task near the end of the day, and then a few minutes later bam, a new goodie to put in my game toolbox. Snarl destroyers. Love it.

But has anyone had the reverse, a girl call you out on doing the smirk? Seems like if it’s not hard to destroy the snarl, a smirk destroyer might hit me one of these days. What did she say, and did you think of a comeback?

“But has anyone had the reverse, a girl call you out on doing the smirk? Seems like if it’s not hard to destroy the snarl, a smirk destroyer might hit me one of these days. What did she say, and did you think of a comeback?”

Her: “You look awfully pleased with yourself.”

Me: “You would be too if you had what I had for dinner.”

The good thing about this one is if she freaks you can always say “I meant steak, get your mind out of the gutter.”

Watched with pride as my 14yro responded to “the snarl” with “oh…that’s a nervous tic…thought you were crapping yourself” and walked away. The “hot” one, behind the wall of churls and not really part of the encounter, peeled off and followed after him trying to get his attention. Proud, proud momment!

Funny topic. Our eighth grade homeroom was in the basement of the school. And although my crowd and I didn’t have terms like “snarl face,” we did mock the girls who gave us what we called the “constipated look.” Our comeback became so popular everyone started using it:

The dude displaying an alpha smirk
has a strangely asymmetric face.
Interesting.
Lyle Lovett was/is a singer/song writer from the wilder parts of Texas. He has a non-standard face.Observed from up close, his success with the ladies was stunning and apparently effortless.

Sometimes I wonder who these girls are you guys approach – is it just nineteen year olds in bars? If so, then the preoccupation you all have with female hypergamy makes sense.

Think of it like this: a 19yr old does not want to have a baby, so no need for nice guy betas.

A 25 yr old is starting to think that she might want to settle down soon with a decent guy with at least some semblance of intelligence & character.

The 25yr old 8 or 9 will be more polite to you at a bar or social gathering than the idiot 19yr old 6. But all you guys seem to think that after 23 all women are “old ladies”. But then you wonder why immature women act immature?

I get it that women now get fat much quicker than they used to, but take a fit woman in her late twenties – if she’s beautiful – she’ll be more beautiful at 28 than she was at 18. And she’ll have the money to spend on feminine dresses & lingerie.

Maybe this obsession with youth is an American thing? I’m European, we accept that as we age our value increases as women – not the opposite. But we don’t snarl or get fat either.

In the USA, a beautiful, feminine, well-behaved 28 y.o. is usually married with a couple of kids by then — in large part due to the sow epidemic which ensures that the most desirable women are snapped up quickly. And if she isn’t married, she usually is in a committed long-term relationship, or a member of some religious demonination, usually Protestant, that I want no part of.

In Europe (except that pit Britain, which is even worse than the USA), there are many more available feminine somewhat older women.

No, it’s universal that 18 year olds are far more attractive than their older counterparts. Europe is no different. Hygiene might improve however. But, for that, virginity in someone who hasn’t learned fashion and daily showering is still worth more.

Alphas prefer virgins in every culture, especially in Europe.

But western Europe is outrageously politically correct now. Truth is a foreign concept there.

Helena – I’m (or was) European, too, and there is a HUGE difference.
In the US, the 19-year old isn’t allowed into (most) bars and already has 1-3 kids. 60% + of the population are overweight, half of them obese (=30 lbs. or more over).
Virtually all women (age and looks irrelevant) think of themselves as a combination of Miss Universe and the Queen of Sweden, and women between 16-55 are pretty much only interested in men 16-28, provided said man is at least 6’2, looks like a soap opera actor and has Donald Trump’s checkbook.
And if she’s fit and pretty at 28, you can quadruple that demand.
And yes, America may be the most youth-obsessed culture on the planet.

This is a profoundly stupid comment. You make many false assumptions.
1. A 25 year old 8 was quite possibly a 19 year old 9. The opposite doesn’t happen, you don’t get more attractive as you age unless there are some radical changes to your body.
2. A young girl is far less experienced and far more gullible, thus easier to pick up. She also hasn’t accumulated a useless degree and fluffy job title to feel more self important.
3. A girl who is an idiot at 19 will be an idiot at 25. You’ll seldom see a woman learn from her mistakes, that learning experience is usually avoided by rationalization, blaming and society not holding her accountable.
4. A beautiful 29 year old single women has something wrong with her. Quite possibly, she is a giant slut delusional about her SMV. She probably carries a lot of baggage from being fucked and chucked so often – the so called 1000 cock stare. Or worse, she has bastard children.
6. American women are just as delusional about their value with increasing age, maybe even more so as European women. They think their liberal arts degree makes up for years of whoring and declining looks. A 10% decrease in sexual market value usually goes along with a 20% increase in hamster velocity. Unless we find a way to convert this into electricity you are not objectively more valuable.

Of course, you have to take what’s there. If there isn’t a 10, there may be a 9 [..] and so on down the line until Rosie Palmer seems like the preferable date.

Damn blog ate my comment. TL;DR you are full of delusions. American women also think their value increases with age, but this is just basic physics: Every reaction has an equal opposite reaction, in this case the decrease in value causes an increase in Hamster velocity.

“The 25yr old 8 or 9 will be more polite to you at a bar or social gathering than the idiot 19yr old 6. But all you guys seem to think that after 23 all women are “old ladies”. But then you wonder why immature women act immature?”

Understand, Helena, that you are speaking to a lot of virgins with invented conquests. I’ve never in my life met a person who “peaked” at 19. Male or female…if a girl peaks in her teens she has either led a very hard life (meth addict, or something similar) or her peak was pretty sad.

I agree that some women do look better in their thirties than when they were about 19

A few even look quite good in their fourthies

My girlfriend is 52 and looks not a day over 42, she used to be a “traffic stopper” and is still quite hot for a woman her age , of course younger men here would lift their nose on her because well… she is almost a grandma to them

even when I was a very young man I have always been attracted to women who were a bit older what is called today a “milf” or a ” mature”
although I only dated once a woman who was older than I was,
I was 32 and she was 40 and to me she seemed so much older!!!

From a physical standpoint, people in general peak betwen 16 and 30, 19-25 being the sweet spot. The often awkward teens are behind them, and the first li’l signs of decay that start to slowly creep into the dark corners at some point in their 30’s haven’t made their appearance just yet.
Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying or deluding themselves or was the ‘fat kid’ and beat the very long odds by losing the weight later in life.
Online fgorums are chock full to the frickin’ rfaters with women in their 40’s and 50’s claiming to be newly awakened sexual dynamos, leading ‘active’ lives (= bowling….) and being more attractive now than they were in college.
100% pure undiluted bullshit.
Note that the above does not apply to female gymnasts and figure skaters.
They are in essence washed-up grandmas at 22, at least in their sport.

Twenty is your physical peak, and your value is largely physical. Or, to use round numbers, your plateau is roughly around 16-24, with mileage varying. Mentioning that you begin your decline in mid-twenties is not the same as saying “after 23 all women are ‘old ladies,'” and you know that. (Exaggeration for effect doesn’t work here either.) Let’s accept this cruel time-frame as a rule of thumb and move on. There is no point in whistling past this particular graveyard.

You are correct to say that a woman’s peak value is not necessarily tied to the chronological. In fact, you are pointing up the profound tragedy of female development: it runs along separate tracks. By the time a woman matures mentally, socially, and spiritually, her physical peak has passed. Which is why civilized people have always protected young women from making life-altering choices for themselves. When we abdicate this responsibility, we get the sexual morass-bordering-on-dystopia of our era’s slutocracy, depicted most artfully on the HBO show Girls.

You are further correct to assume this site emphasizes the physical value of women to the point of outright distortion, but this is not without purpose. When two seemingly intelligent women such as you and Helena blithely perpetuate the absurdity that the beauty of youth is a mere trick or “American” “obsession,” a loud corrective is in order. If an audience is hard of hearing, one must shout. If indeed this is an audience of big-talking virgins with fake conquests, then all the more reason to disabuse them of the shibboleths that are trapping them in lies, shibboleths you unwittingly just perpetrated. Their eyes tell them one thing, their culture tells them another, and this promotes an environment of dishonesty all around.

While the men may be hard of hearing, you are positively deaf — most likely for fear of admitting your powerlessness in the face of diminishing value: by the time you independently achieve the paternal wisdom that could have steered you toward smart decisions, the sagging, the crows feet, and the stubborn weight will have already appeared, even as your fertility continues to steadily vanish.

But take heart. More goes into a lady than simple prettiness, even if that truth is not a point of focus on these sites. You have advantages, but pride, confusion, and an acquired dishonesty disallow you from pressing them.

Sample statement: “The world is filled with assholes. I don’t like assholes, most other people don’t seem to either” or some variation of “people in the real world who are successful in an endeavor don’t usually spend a lot of time boasting about how successful they are”
(fwiw, they also aren’t prone to using handles like ‘pussy magnet’ or similar, but that’s neither here nor there…)

Those are indeed the responses because a shorthand is required until you get up to speed on your own initiative, if ever. Now here I patiently take the time to get you up to speed, and your clueless reply just confirms the utility of the shorthand, if anything to spare us a wasted effort.

I suppose it’s not a complete waste, given that others are reading and noting the solid rationale behind the abbreviations and jargon, which will forever incite neophytes into going off half-cocked, especially the resentful female kind.

And no, “exaggeration for effect will not work here” as it works with your wilting daddy and beta supplicants. We don’t buy into the princess persecution complex at the expense of speaking the plain truth. Nobody but you and your sisters make the claim that “23-year-olds are ‘old ladies,'” and yet you attribute that absurdity to us as if we aren’t familiar with your M.O.: hastily cobble together the crudest straw man to justify your criticism and ridicule, which pertain to nothing, as any observer who isn’t impressed with your assertions of quality (“I’m very successful in life on all counts”) can see. In fact, we see it clearly enough and repeatedly enough to identify a type. And your type gets a name. Hamster in overdrive.

But do stick around. You are indeed “starting to understand the code here.” Once you internalize it a little better, you might have something useful to say. But then, twentysomethings living in dread of the wall hardly ever do more than repeat cliché as expected of them. Only after it’s too late do you acquire the humility to suffer into wisdom, rather than just whine about it, searching for someone who cares (besides your steadily accumulating house of cats, who never judge).

I’m not rejecting your assertions, cupcake. I’m pointing out that they don’t suffice as the distraction you think they are. I have no reason to believe you aren’t accomplished and satisfied with yourself.

Stay focused, will you? I can present the comprehensive case, but I can’t make you follow along.

Here is your hope, to follow the smooth path of Susanna Hoffs to your mortal destiny, the way of all flesh:

Age 29:

Age 37:

Age 42:

Age 53 (today):

I don’t mean to taunt you, but she is so rare it’s almost cruel to point her out. If you don’t have her saucer-sized eyes and smoky-schoolgirl voice, there’s not much to distract from the signs of rot. If she had work done, it’s not obvious to me. Then again, it may just be my boyhood crush talking.

Lyle Lovett had a weirdly un – balanced facial bone structure, Yet, for some reason, for those of us who saw his career and his love-life all up close only one answer seemed true: He got all the hot chicks with any apparent effort. Julia Roberts was like a waiting in-in-line- for
Lyle. kind of girl.

Lyle had/has a funny looking unsymmetric face So does Mr. Smirk Man in this post. LL was perhaps the most efficicent harvester of free -range-poon to have ever lived. ‘Effortless” is only a 10 letter word. But up close, it can look like Mozart in his Prime.

[…] The female snarl has become a topic of conversation, which is not surprising because American women in general are becoming less feminine and more churlish. When in the past women would gently demur the solicitations of beta and omega males, today they prefer the unrefined art of snarling like a hyena over a fresh kill, the kill being their overworked vaginas. Meanwhile, alpha males witness them snarling ungenerously and think, “Marriage material? Nope. Pump and dump material? Yes!” don’t bother me. i’m pooping a purple saguaro. The author of the linked article posits that the frequency with which women snarl correlates to their age and the sexual market threat level of the targets of their disapproval. A woman arguably snarls between five to twenty times a day. The frequency is directly related to maturity. The more immature, the more the snarl appears. High school, consistently snarling. College, frequently. Twenties, sporadically. Thirties, only when they see a younger woman. There have probably been a couple snarls while reading this. Ha haa. I’d add that the snarl is increasing among all female age groups, though younger women do use it more profligately, and with good reason: there are more beta males lasciviously eyeing their goods for Source: Chateau Heartiste […]

In all seriousness, thanks for addressing the fact that it’s hard for some girls to get rid of betas who just want a wet hole for the night. Guys like that are pushy to the point of, well, deserving the snarl sometimes. I do agree it’s highly overused, but how is a woman supposed to deflect unwanted attention? What’s the right signal? Guys, honestly, what is it you honor in cases like that?

I do agree it’s highly overused, but how is a woman supposed to deflect unwanted attention?

Stay home. Wear something dowdy. Neglect to use makeup.

Contrived, exaggerated, and minor inconveniences do not necessitate a new social convention to preserve your inflated sense of entitlement. You do not have a right to treat a public place like a private one. The possibility of attention is one of the differences between “home” and “out,” and your constipated stinkeye cannot magically preserve the royal prerogatives that exist chiefly in your head. You interact with human beings through the long-standing conventions of etiquette and courtesy.

That women pretend it necessary to contort their faces into ugly masks indicates the incongruity of female expectations more than the faux pas of men, as the original post indicates. You’re not that hot, so stop flattering yourself. In fact no woman is such a prize that she can establish a set of social privileges centered around her maximum convenience — the efforts of beta slavering notwithstanding.

Look, it is a meat market out there. You are the meat. All meat attracts flies no matter the quality of the cut. If you want it to be different, you have to change the culture at its foundations, and even then your best hope is to make it a friendlier place for your daughters. Until then, unequal treatment is a non-starter, particularly when you dress the part. If you and your sisters sneer and hiss like animals, you will be treated like animals in return. If the best you can do is expressionistic shorthand and handicapped face-twisting, you deserve contempt. The rest of us adults understand the value of doing things the hard way, even if it requires a princess be momentarily interrupted.

The snarl is a retreat to the state of nature. It is a sign of complete unsophistication. When the busboy comes to take your plate a little too early, do you snap your jaws at his hand and growl? “[H]ow [else] is a woman supposed to” indicate she is not finished with her meal? “What’s the right signal?” This is not a hard question! The fact that you are even weighing the answer against a feral sneer and coming up baffled is a sign just how far we have indulged the “noble” savagery of bitches unto their own privileged barbarism. Fuuuuuck that. (And fuck you.)

How is a woman supposed to deflect unwanted attention? The way we all do. By politely and firmly engaging the human being in front of us, and giving him the chance to save face, return politesse, and withdraw. If he is drunk and rowdy and inappropriate, the social pressure is on your side. If he just happens to have, in your opinion, overstepped his station, then the onus is on you.

Your call for quick & dirty solutions indicates you expect the world to invent and honor a social device designed to keep your pedestal above the horror of possible interaction with those whom your caprice deems unworthy of acknowledgment. If you don’t know how to neutralize an interloper politely, it can only be because you have never been expected to. That is plainly uncivilized. (And begging for comeuppance and humiliation, which happens to be my specialty.)

So snarl and snot it up, snowflakes. It’s my favorite. The easiest “opener” to the quickest tingle there is.

Crap, I don’t think my reply to his post posted, but I was just asking a question. Not even really about bitch-face, just a question in general. It can be awfully hard to shake a guy loose who’s decided he’s going to fuck you that night.

The problem with not being able to effectively and politely turn a man down is that sometimes you find yourself, as a woman, in a position you don’t want to be in. I know that doesn’t get much discussion around here, but we’re not always cruising for sex. (and seriously, CH, you should do something about when a guy knows to back off)

The snarl is an affectation of perceived attractiveness, sure, but it’s also a defense mechanism against perceived threats (not defending it, just saying). Maybe a valid question here is what make the modern dating market so animalistic that some little girls have learned to behave like this in order to navigate it.

All I was saying is that sometimes, men overstep their bounds, too, and get pushy, and sometimes there’s very little you can do as a woman to shut it down. For the record, I’ve never snarled at a guy to get him to leave me alone. Sitting in a bar having a drink after work, in non-whorish clothing, does not mean I’m on the menu. I would never go out, dressed to the nines with my boobs hanging out, and expect no male attention. When I don’t want it, I dress conservative, but guess what, even that social cue disappears in the eyes of men after a few drinks. I’m not asking for some kind of special social convention. I’m asking how to deal with the set we’re all handed when we go out at night, unrelated to the act of snarling in any way. I was just using that as a springboard to ask a very simple question.

In general, I actually agree with you. Decency works in 90% of situations, but in that 10% of times when you can’t get a guy off you, it can be almost panic-inducing. Some men simply do not accept a polite answer. I was asking about those situations, the really extreme ones, when a guy is too drunk or too cocky to realize the girl wants him to step off.

I don’t know what I said that deserves the level of anger in your comment. You do understand that sexual relations have been so fucked with in this country that both men and women have a hard time navigating it, right?

You think women have the advantage, but that’s only true for the sluts. They are the only ones that get anything out of the way things are now. The rest of us who aren’t in that category (the ones that men say they want as LTR material) are immediately put at a disadvantage by that behavior. If you’re not participating in it, you’re not looked at. That’s how it works. You want to be with a hot girl who doesn’t put out due to moral or religious reservations? Course you don’t.

You think a woman has the upper hand over a drunk man? Only under certain conditions, where there are sober men who recognize what’s going on and are willing to intervene. You know how many men are willing to intervene? I have never seen it happen, and it usually doesn’t, unless the guy’s a bouncer or something. It’s basic psychology. You know how scary it can be for a woman, dealing with a drunk guy who wants something out of her? Have you ever been followed out of a bar in a situation like that, knowing damn well that there is nothing you can do to protect yourself?

Decency is in really short supply out there, for everyone.

But that’s not the point of this place for you, is it? It’s not about decency. You say you want it, but a woman asks an honest question about a situation that every female on the planet has found herself in, and you decide to bitch-slap her for it.

Well, those are liberal women. Conservative women wouldn’t even adopt to begin with. They want to do their part of the obligation – get married and have children, even one of your own. Two is better.

Many of these women are so liberal, they even forgo marriage altogether. They just adopt a baby, preferably of a different race, and think they are doing good in the world. They might be helping a poor soul but shortchanging themselves. Adoption should be a substitute, unless you can’t have your own children.

as someone mentioned here a couple days ago ( can’t remember who) a lot of women have the crazy cat lady syndrome and that explains why they adopt babies from other races or why they are so full of empathy for the children of illegal immigrants

when empathy and compassion go over board either for cats of babies this is a mental disorder, a mild one but a mental disorder nevertheless

Madonna or Angelina Jolie could adopt another 14 or 40 black babies, it would be less than a drop in an ocean because millions of babies are born in Africa and other poor third world countries all the time and this is not about to slow down anytime soon, and poverty over there is not about to go away either

and I find it utterly insulting that those woman let white babies rot in orphanages

They give themselves a good conscience by adopting black and yellow babies, but the flip side of that is that they are being unfair and even cruel to white babies in orphanages in their own nation

they spit on their own race.

They are anti-white

they contribute to the genocide of whites

Blacks, Browns and Yellows do not adopt white babies, no one wants white babies

The problem is they don’t view whites as requiring any sympathy. They are not the underdog, get it?

I often say that just because one is the “underdog” doesn’t mean they are always the good or should always elicit sympathy. Just like a dispute between a rich man and a poor man. The liberals always tend to be sympathetic to the poor person. In my book, we have to evaluate the evidence accordingly and decide based on the merits who is right and who is wrong in a dispute. The media will right away gravitate towards the poor person, the underdog, or the ethnic person without evaluating things in an honest manner Just because someone is poor, black, or the underdog, it doesn’t make them automatically right, or vice versa.

Liberals often substitute poor and the underdog for Right or Good, and whites or rich are always substituted for evil-capitalist or racists. Do you see how it’s all screwed up?

Liberals often have misplaced sympathy. Showing sympathy to the underserving is tantamount to being cruel or unfair to the Good person or the person in the right.

Good and bad, right and wrong, and common sense have been all mixed up.

This is true. My cousin was a prime candidate to adopt (LCSW + government job + financially very stable), but after learning she’d have to wait 6-8 years for a healthy white American child to become available, she settled for adopting an aftermarket knock-off baby from China.

Adopting a black baby, however, was more or less like calling Domino’s: delivery in 30 minutes or less. (Ok, ok, I made this part up just for Thwack.)

We have the same problem here in the province of Quebec,
it takes forever to adopt a white baby and it is easier to adopt Chinese baby which is what a lot of people end up doing

why make it so hard to adopt white babies and make it super easy to adopt any other baby?

if our governemnt agencies were worried about people adopting babies they would make it just as hard to adopt a baby from a nation thousand miles away but no, the barriers are only for local white babies

I’m not into conspiracy theories but this is weird, even suspicious, it seems to be intentional

maybe a lot of social workers would be out of a job if people adopted white babies and they make it almost impossible to adopt one to keep their jobs?

if they are Unionized, it is highly possible that they manipulate everything and everyone

“A fantastically egregious bitch — let’s say, a chubster wearing too much makeup and muffin top who thinks every man wants her and deserves her worst shit tests — requires a bit more… encouragement… to reform her ill-suited attitude. In such circumstances, the smirk won’t pack the necessary wallop. You’ll need something edgier.”

Like what? I give her the Bruce Willis smirk then casually hand her a card with the CH url on it…
And then my bodyguard, Jaws, comes over, smiles, picks her up, and drops her muffin-top first into the nearest dumpster.

I remember way back when… I was a young beta, travelling home from work on the train. I was staring off into space, more asleep than awake really, when I realized that the space I was staring off into contained an hot chick, easy 9, but a little old for me. The reason I realized she was there was because she snarled/sneered at me (“Imagine the likes of you looking at a hot babe like me”). The look of complete disorientation on her face when I cracked up helpless with laughter was not only beautiful to behold, but started me on the path to confidence.

And there are good sites now about what makes a male physique that’s pleasing to the female eye. I use Rusty Moore’s Fitness Black Book stuff and you can read up on what they call the Hollywood physique on sites like evolvify. My girl is into the male back too, I’ve been working on it with the pull-ups and do them a lot better now (whole sets of them unassisted).

A link to Sweden? You don’t hang around here much, do you. And I don’t care what some study says, I’m a natural skinny guy and I can feel the difference in how women react to me now that I’ve been lifting for a couple of years.

I’m a naturally skinny guy trying to get bigger as well (though I am, as my name suggests, lazy about it). I’m not saying you shouldn’t put on muscle, just saying that some guys overestimate the size of the ideal body. Of course, its not a huge problem.

“I remember when you used to be able to eye-fuck girls whilst walking down the street”

I do that everyday. It’s a lot of fun. About half of the girls eye-fuck me back.

A few days ago I walked past a group milling outside of a pricey restaurant. It was several impressive, executive looking men and one unbelievably hot early-thirties woman wearing a smart skirt-suit and with legs out of this world. Everyone was dressed to the max. It was obviously an important business meeting of some kind.

The chick must have already been in a state of elevated arousal, with all that tense alpha air about her group. I walked past, locked onto her eyes with a regal hint of smile and she looked had back at me and with a flushed facestayed eye-locked. Her eyes silently erupted in orgasm.

On a related note, I make it a habit to stare overtly at any women who is willing to put her goods on display. If you are wearing some form fitting outfit or have your cleavage out I will openly and actively stare at it because I find it pleasing and I care fuck all if my gaze makes you uncomfortable. The best is walking through a mall or store with some hoochie in front of me in tight sweat pants, skirt, etc. I will watch that ass sometimes not even seeing where I’m walking.

A lot of this is defensive urbanism, out of fear of provocation. You don’t get as much anxiety from eyeballing in the country.

Steady eye-contact is a declaration of one’s worth, which can be provocative in certain contexts. The difference between a creeper’s gawk and proper peering is intent, which radiates from the “windows to the soul” as clearly as spoken words. It is “I adore you and am mesmerized by you” vs.”You are part of the landscape, all of which I own.” The difference is indifference.

But apparently men aren’t terribly wise to this trick. Most girls must not be used to possession by glance, given their general inability to deliver a proper or effective response. They always break first, usually quickly. Indeed, there’s such power in eye contact that few have the gumption to explore it enough to react rationally and consistently to the sudden, everyday staring contest.

It should be the first tool in every man’s toolbox. But it is useless, even dangerous, without first mastering intent.

I’ve found that raising an eyebrow and a smirk then turning away sends the message. Or if she is part of the group, saying the old, “Careful your your face will grow like that.” Gets an embarrassed response – especially if you’re older since many times it makes them go back to their “little-girl” place. It’s interesting, while I may see a snarl at a bar; when I come down off stage, or am doing auditions and the women are trying out for a part, I never see it except directed at other women/girls who are trying out for either the same part, or have pushed their way to the front of the line.

It’s all about presentation and objective. You have to remember an 18-22 year old, really is still a child (since she’s been protected from the real-world by parents and school) and still needs to be called out on unacceptable behavior or they tend to go feral. Too many women haven’t had a strong man in the house to train them properly in how to behave in a social setting, so it’s up to you to call them out on poor behavior – and not be a child yourself. Women tend to be like dogs – they really do want to please, but you have to show them you are the alpha dog and don’t take non-sense from females even if you plan to bend them over a couch later…

Doc, the problem you would likely run into there is being laughed at. Most young women don’t care what is or what isn’t unacceptable behavior. In fact, many young women bask in what isn’t acceptable. Look at Rihanna for example. She’s the alpha dog of the music industry, and so is Lady Gaga. Both females. Both bad girls using rebellion to get what they want, attention, fame, glory, and money. And they get it. Women are caring less and less about how men want them to behave. The more they know what is expected of them, the more they do the opposite. You can try to show women that you don’t take non-sense from females, but they will flip the rug from under you and show you they don’t either.

There’s been way too much value on marriage anyway. From birth we are told, “Do this, be this, act like this and find the one, have kids with him… and live happily ever after,” as if it’s the most important thing to accomplish in this world.

Wrong. Whether women admit it or not, they give a tremendous shit about what everyone thinks of them. Look at how much trouble they go to before going out, even to the shops. You could, and probably will, see men at your local shopping centre who have unkempt beards, matted hair, stained shirts, and socks and sandals. These are people who truly don’t give a fuck what people think. Women spend half their fucking income on looking pleasing to the eye. The exact opposite.

The reason women ‘act bad’ is because women like bad boys and mistakenly think it works the opposite way to — that is, that men like bad girls. Men have the same problem: they will often approach women in a nice, respectful, and friendly manner, because these are the personality traits we like in women. I hate to use a term belong to psychology, because I believe much of it is bullshit, but I believe this is referred to as ‘projection’.

If you need proof of how much these bad girls actually care, scour the net for threads criticising tattoos on women. In them you will find many resentful bad girls who have their feelings hurt by such criticism. Further proof that women care about what others think is how she responds to insults. If a woman is insulted, she cries, whereas an insulted man just says “I don’t care what that cunt thinks anyway”.

I didn’t say that women don’t care what anyone thinks about them, period. I meant, and I should have clarified…. many of them don’t give a shit if anyone expects them to behave like “ladies” as in, dress pretty, act feminine, keep your legs closed and crossed, don’t curse, don’t burp or fart out loud, etc.

Nice theory, but so abjectly false it’s laughable. Women care very much about what others think about them. That’s why you have a brigade of cunts descending on you once you publicly judge a woman negatively for her behavior. Remember the slutwalks after a cop gave some innocent advice?

Remember for example the case of the fatty news anchor who supposedly got bullied by a private, politely worded e-mail. She mentioned it on air to elicit positive attention. If she really didn’t care she would just delete the e-mail and move on with her life.

You are in fact constantly whining if someone is telling you what to do. That’s the opposite of not caring.

There is a massive difference between caring how you are treated and caring what others think.

Of course I care if someone tells me what to do. They don’t get to do that. I do. But if someone calls me a fat, lazy, cunt, or whatever name men think makes us “cry” or flinch….I usually don’t respond. It’s meaningless insult that doesn’t phase me.

So you don’t care what others think as long as they don’t say anything or act on it? I suppose that makes a limited amount of sense and pretty well describes the way most liberals act around uncomfortable truths.

“The more they know what is expected of them, the more they do the opposite. You can try to show women that you don’t take non-sense from females, but they will flip the rug from under you and show you they don’t either.”

No, I think it’s the men that are flipping the rug underneath us. They stop respecting and cherishing women, and they don’t want to get married anymore. Feminism just gave them all the excuses in the book to use women sexually, deservedly or not, without marriage. Feminism is a dream come true for men, not so much for women.

Regarding Lady Gaga and Rihanna being the example of today’s desirable women, just because a few skanks can behave unfemininly because they have the world stage at their disposal, doesn’t mean the average woman can. Men are still very subconsciously oriented and formatted over what constitutes a worthy female for marriage, and the Lady Gaga and Rihanna types in RL are not it.

And regarding marriage not being valuable, I don’t think there is a woman who starts seeing a guy without thinking he has potential to be a BF/husband and father, or the so-called night-in-shining-armor. If you think women are not interested in marriage anymore, you are HIGHLY mistaken. All they do subconsciously is for the marriage proposal. It’s too bad they don’t realize what their inner voice tells them, but instead they listen to old-hag feminists fill their heads with falsehoods.

Lady Gaga is a circus clown.
Hell, David Bowie was Lady Gaga 20 years before Lady Gaga was even a glint in her daddy’s eye.
And Rihanna – ‘nuddah one whose parents obviously had trouble spelling – probably gets slapped around all the time because her beause her beaus are sick of her caterwauling.
She like.

This only works if all women behave like those pop stars, which will never happen.

Men will bed the loonies but not call them the next day. They’ll stick with the good ones. Always was this way, always will be. You can will the battle, but will ultimately lose the war.

And it doesn’t get better as you get older. Older women who never married are at a double loss because they tend to come off as crazy, not having been civilized by kids, and they also have to deal with men their age going for younger women.

Finally, a lot of what you see in those pop stars is a contrived image designed to sell rebellion to women. Gaga doesn’t represent any sort of “new woman” any more than KISS represented a breed of new men.

Right. Celebrities are rich and protected enough to handle the consequences of their antisocial behavior. Meanwhile, fans who take their cue from the private lives of their idols wreck themselves in imitation. Voilà, trailer parks and Jerry Springer shows.

Exactly… any man who went around “slapping asses with impunity” (lllllozozozolllll… sorry, that just sounds so funny to me) usually got slapped down himself by either the woman or nearby men.

True story: Back in the day, a friend’s girlfriend was telling us about how, while out jogging, some clown slapped her ass as she ran by (college town) him on the street… she wasn’t one to take this lightly, and I never knew her to curse, but said she whirled around and shouted at him “YOU FUCKING BASTARD!”. Well, two workmen driving by in a truck saw it and heard her, and they jumped out and chased the guy down, hammers in hand… and brought him back by the scruff of his neck for an apology.

That’s how it was, some 20 years ago. I’d like to think it would still happen today… I know I’d do it, though I doubt I could run down a 20-something these days.

when I was in my teens and early twenties( in the 1970s and 1980s before feminism infected everything ) , if a man touched a woman’s ass , her brother or some friends of her would threaten the guy with physical violence and make him leave the premises

the offender occasionally got beaten up

men had a reason to defend women’s honor back then and they often did

now that feminism has made us ( white males ) second rate citizens only good for writing checks and that our entertainment/culture is making fun of us every chance it gets, very few men get involved

…women aren’t vending machines where if you put in enough Nice, sex comes out

you can say that again!

actually it is worse than that

putting enough nice only gets you nice in return from women maybe 10% of the time

Believe me I know, I’m 53 and have been a nice guy for most of my life and after having dated 25 women I can tell you that had I treated them like shit, they would not have been bitchier than they were after I had treated them like princesses

no matter how you treat most women they will be bitches in return

It is useless to be nice to women ( there are a few exceptions , maybe 5 or 10 % of women are nice if you find one hang on to her!!!)

oh and what is not so funny is that if a woman gives you sex she then expect you to be super nice in return

These “men” on this website are spinning in little hamster wheels quite often. I’ve finally concluded that we should just leave them alone. It’s just a big sausage fest full of women haters. Us being here although amusing, is doing nothing…these men all clearly have self confidence issues. Although the way they are trying to deal with it is wrong, in reality, we don’t have to put up with men like this. If they want to live in denial then they are welcome to it.

You have it figured out! That’s why you are posting here. Where all the super-successful with women people come to talk about how successful they are.

Come now. You’re “clever enough to come up with new material.”

You might imagine this idea has been done to death by haters of every stripe. The thooopher thuthethphul are so thuthethphul that they spend every waking moment obsessively pursuing their goal and none reflecting on it or comparing notes with peers or just shooting the shit with the like-minded, &c.

What if “It’s so easy / When everybody’s trying to please me”? What if they’re “out to please” and “ready to make” whether we post here or not?